← All Phrases

“gross total income”

Chapter VI - Deductions / Set-offSection 80B(5)Section 80B(5) / Rule 3D2,282 judgments

The decision most relied on for gross total income is CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State (200 Taxmann 220), cited in 348 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on gross total income

CIT v. Andhra Pradesh State
200 Taxmann 220 · 2011 · High Court
348
citing judgments

Interest earned by a Co-operative Society from investing fixed deposits in banks is entitled to a deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act.

CIT v. Yokogawa India Ltd.
391 ITR 274 · 2017 · Supreme Court
290
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A or 10AA of the Income-tax Act is computed on the profits of the eligible unit without first setting off losses from other units or non-eligible units. Conversely, losses incurred by an eligible unit are allowed to be set off against the assessee's other taxable business profits.

ACG Associated Capsules (P) Ltd. v. CIT
343 ITR 89 · 2012 · Supreme Court
144
citing judgments

For calculation of deduction under Section 80HHC, if total interest is netted off after adjusting interest paid and received, the 90% reduction specified in Explanation (baa) is not applicable.

Synco Industries Ltd. v. Assessing Officer (IT) & Another
299 ITR 444 · 2008 · Supreme Court
82
citing judgments

When computing deductions under Chapter VI-A, such as Section 80IA, losses from other business undertakings must be set off against the profits of the eligible undertaking before calculating the deduction. No deduction under Section 80IA is permissible if the overall 'Profits & Gains of Business or Profession' results in a loss.

CIT v. Himatasingike Seide Ltd.
286 ITR 255 · 2006 · High Court
73
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 10A of the Income-tax Act is to be allowed only after setting off unabsorbed depreciation and brought forward business losses against the profits of the business.

CIT v. Williamson Financial Services
165 Taxmann 638 · 2007 · Supreme Court
67
citing judgments

Income-tax is levied on the total income of an assessee, not on gross receipts. The tax is on income, and deductions for expenditure are permissible.

CIT v. Reliance Energy Limited
127 Taxmann.com 69 · 2021 · Supreme Court
47
citing judgments

Deduction under Section 80-IA or 80-IB is computed by setting it off against the gross total income to arrive at the total income of an assessee.

CIT v. Tridoss Laboratories Ltd.
328 ITR 448 · 2010 · High Court
35
citing judgments

Deductions under Chapter VI-A of the Income Tax Act, such as Section 80-IA, are to be calculated and allowed with reference to the assessee's gross total income, not just business income.

Judgments citing gross total income

M/S. India Pistons Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, CC - 2(3), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3389/CHNY/2019[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Oct 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri G. Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 3389/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 1999-2000 India Pistons Ltd., The Acit, Huzur Gardens, Sembium, Vs. Corporate Circle-2(3), Perambur, Chennai Chennai – 600 011. Pan: Aaaci 1439E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 31.10.2022 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 31.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R Per Mahavir Singh: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Chennai, In Ita No.79/Cit(A)-6/2009-10 Dated 19.09.2019. The Assessment Was Framed By The Acit, Company Circle-Ii(3), Chennai For The Assessment Year 1999-2000 U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’) Vide Order Dated 11.12.2009. 2. The First Issue In This Appeal Of Assessee Is As Regards To The Order Of Cit(A) Confirming The Action Of Ao In Disallowing The Pre- Operative Expenses Of Existing Business Claimed In Respect Of Expansion Of Existing Business At Sengundram, Chennai. For This, Assessee Has Raised Following Ground:- “Rejecting The Entire Claim Of Pre Operative Expenses Of Rs.2,89,03,774/- In Respect Of The Expansion Of The Existing Business At Sengundram, Chennai & Granting Deduction U/S.35D At 5%”

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 35DSection 80I

plant for manufacture of Rink Blank has been set up by the assessee and claimed the same to new industrial undertaking due to gross total income being negative, deduction u/s.80IA of the Act has not been claimed. According to ld.counsel, the AO as well